Research Report. Refugee Status Determination and Statelessness in Kazakhstan: Analysis of Court Practice

The report presents the findings of the research project on court practice in refugee status determination and statelessness in Kazakhstan, covering the period from 2014 to 2025. The study was prepared by Abay Abylaiuly, Dana Medetbekova, and Kurmanzhan Abdyrakhmanova at Maqsut Narikbayev University and is based on a comprehensive collection and qualitative and quantitative analysis of judicial decisions from first-instance, appellate, and cassation courts across Kazakhstan.

The analysis reveals that, despite Kazakhstan’s formal accession to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and the existence of a multi-tiered domestic legal framework including the Law “On Refugees”, the practical implementation of refugee protection faces persistent and systemic challenges. In particular, a pronounced uniformity was identified in judicial outcomes concerning refugee status determination: courts upheld administrative refusals in 464 of 467 reviewed decisions, with refugee status granted in only two instances. Judicial reasoning was found to rely heavily on documentary evidence and the applicant’s burden of proof, while engagement with international sources such as UNHCR guidance and country-of-origin information remained minimal.

The study demonstrates that, in order to conduct a comprehensive assessment of statelessness-related judicial practice, over 3,200 judicial acts were reviewed, from which 111 decisions were selected covering the period from November 2009 to January 2025. In contrast to refugee status determination, judicial practice in statelessness cases proved considerably more heterogeneous, with an overall rate of decisions in favour of applicants of 50.5%, reaching 88.9% in certain categories.

The research highlights that, across both areas of analysis, Kazakhstan’s legal framework formally incorporates international standards, yet their practical application remains constrained by strict evidentiary requirements, limited judicial engagement with international guidance, and a pattern of deference to administrative authorities. The report concludes by underscoring the need for further comparative and doctrinal research, including an examination of internal administrative decision-making processes and cross-jurisdictional comparison with other Central Asian and post-Soviet legal systems, as a means of determining whether the identified patterns are country-specific or reflect broader regional trends.

Language: English